The 1789 Discourse: Hannah Arendt

ullstein bild

A woman of remarkable intellect—with an even more remarkable life story—Hannah Arendt was a true intellectual. Born October 14, 1906, her life reads like a novel, including but not limited to: romantic trysts with her philosophy professor, escaping Nazi Germany and then occupied France, to eventually becoming one of the 20th century’s most prolific thinkers.

She is known for her writings regarding totalitarianism as well as the human condition. Yet, she is most well known for her reporting on the trial of holocaust architect Adolph Eichmann for The New Yorker in 1963.  She is far too multi-dimensional to mesh into any particular camp of political philosophy, which is precisely why she—and her commentary—continue to be so interesting. Arendt would, however, despise for us to talk more about her life than her ideas—so as we take a glimpse into her writing, we will try to decipher what she would think about current political topics today.

Arendt's first major work was "Origins of Totalitarianism," which garnered critical acclaim and is considered today to be one of the best non-fiction books of the 20th century. Throughout the work, she describes what makes totalitarianism different from that of other regimes.

How? She states that while autocratic forms of government seek power and look to quell resistance, totalitarianism seeks to control completely every aspect of a citizen's life, which decimates all that is "intellectual, spiritual, and artistic."

She says that totalitarianism always “replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

In The Human Condition, which was published in 1958, she defined  three major  types of human activity—labor, work and action. In the podcast  Talking Politics: The History of Ideas, host  David Runciman says “The easiest way to sum up what Arendt thinks about politics, is to try and explain what she thinks about work.”

"Labor" is the natural domain of human activity and revolves around consumption. For example, a primary type of labor would be to try to get enough food to live. It is repetitive and feels futile, as you will always need to eat again, with the process repeating itself cyclically— it is critically important. 


Next, Arendt defines "work" as creating or putting things into the world that would not exist if we did not create them. For example, if labor is nature driving us, work is us putting something into nature. It could be as simple as a handcrafted table, as grand as the pyramids, or as beautiful as a painting or aria. 


Then we come to her concept of "action." Runciman describes it this way: "If labor is natural, and work is the world of artifice...action is closer to the world of fiction or the imaginary. Action is what human beings do when they tell the stories of their lives." By using communication to express who we are, we can create a story or idea that can outlast even the pyramids, by living in the minds of men for years to come. 


Our own American ideals that come from the Declaration of Independence, for example, has outlived the writers of the original documents themselves.

Arendt' most famous—and most controversial—work was her report on Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem for The New Yorker, which subsequently became a book. In it, she coined her most famous phrase; the banality of evil, and since its publication, it has acquired copious amounts of criticism and praise. Her critics interpreted her analysis of the trial as somehow excusing Eichmann's participation in the atrocities of the Holocaust, but her work doesn't do that—not at all. Instead, she endeavors to do something else entirely, something I consider to be quite brave, in fact: to understand what exactly happened, and how the despicable behavior committed against Jews in World War II had become commonplace in a civilized society.

In her thesis, she stated that Eichmann was neither a rabid antisemite nor a sociopath, but was an extremely average person who had to rely on cliches to defend himself, rather than simply thinking for himself. He was "motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success which he considered the chief standard of 'good society.'

“Banality, in this sense, does not mean that Eichmann's actions were in any way ordinary, or even that there is a potential Eichmann in all of us, but that his actions were motivated by a sort of complacency which was wholly unexceptional.”

The backlash from the Jewish community was severe —and yet—she never backed down from her conclusion. In retrospect, when juxtaposing the stomach-churning reels of the concentration camps to her seemingly indifferent analysis of events— her theory does seem shocking in the face of such extraordinary evil, but that was her point. To not think critically and for yourself presents the same danger associated with an aggressive tide pulling you out to sea. Arendt was committed to standing by what she truly thought happened, and had no interest in pandering to an intellectual mob who disliked what she had to say.

So what would she think about current affairs today?

Arendt would most likely be sympathetic to immigration—particularly on the issue of refugees—as she had been one herself. In regards to coronavirus, I think she would find the prolonged policies that have crept into American life disturbing, as well as any abuse of power by local police. I don't know if she would have a positive view of populism, as fascism and communism were populist movements. Perhaps she found herself caught between the popular will and the elite, because she sensed that evil could easily arise from both of them. I believe she would support free trade, but not with every country, as any money going to enrich governments engaging in human rights violations is a thoughtless policy indeed. I know for a fact she would be appalled at this new "cancel culture" epidemic and the stifling of free expression and spirited debate. The calls for censorship in America today echo Arendt's warning of what happens when people decide to not think for themselves.

Most of all, Arendt was a woman who did not let the trials and tribulations of her life steal her voice or intellect. She didn't falter when speaking her mind and was unafraid to say what she really thought —a tradition we must strenuously fight for in the intellectual community today.

In an interview with a French television station, she said, "Freedom rests only on the conviction that every human being is a thinking creature, can reflect as we do, and can, therefore, judge for himself if he wants to. To think always means to think in a critical manner. And to think in a critical manner means that the thought undermines rigid rules, general convictions, etc. Everything which happens in thinking can be scrutinized. That means there are no dangerous thoughts because thinking in itself is a very dangerous enterprise. I think non-thinking is even more dangerous."